Considering how quicly they modified the logo, I suspect it will eventually result in a statement along the lines of “oops, our bad, we weren’t paying attention when the designer cooked it up. He’s modified it now, and is very sorry and has been sufficiently whipped with heavy chains.”

Dismissive Boingboinger is dismissive. Sorry, Xeni, calling ‘em like I see ‘em. I just really hate these labeling tactics, as if you don’t have to deal with somebody’s points if you can say “Aha! I bet you’re one of $EASILY_DISMISSABLE_OUTSIDER_GROUP.” I hate that crap from the rank and file on Reddit, and I hate it coming from the fingers of Internet celebrities I might otherwise get to like. :(

I know we’ve all heard these questions a million times before, here, but maybe this dude has not followed your site’s illustrious career quite as closely as you assume? Would it really kill you to do Intellectual Property Ethics 101 for someone who asked an honest question? If not, could you not make sweeping assumptions about his sincerity because he’s questioning Sacred Doctrine? (Sacred Doctrine of yours that I mostly AGREE with, but that’s not the point at all.)

comment 1 azaner”i have no knowledge of copyright law and believe you are all hypocrites”
comment 2 xeni”we should ignore comments that end with an insult”
comment 3 bardfinn-(a summary and interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 107 )
comment 4 kmoser”in my opinion your summary of 17 U.S.C. § 107 is flawed”
comment 5 aron”princess bride what an awesome movie”
comment 6 bjacques”to kmoser, your opinion is flawed”
comment 7 Rezeya Montecore”to xeni, you are wrong you should reply to asaner with a summary and interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 107.
comment 8 aron”cyclical patterns in discussion of united states copyright law”

Or maybe you could do some intensive research, like maybe reading the Comment Policy, so that you’d realize that BB is a collective of bloggers with different opinions on different subjects and that there is no party line on IP issues, which azaner has reduced to a trollsnark sound bite. And azaner has been around here long enough to know better.

What I can’t figure out is how this post squares with all the anti-intellectual-property posts I read on BB.

There is a difference between being “anti-IP” and believing that the current interpretation of such law is out-of-balance with regards to the right’s-holders and the common good. In general, I don’t see BB posts as being anti-IP, so much as believing that the cultural commons is being increasingly gutted for the profits of said right’s holders. (An opinion I share.)

But I also agree with Rezeya Montecore, and find it unkind that some BBers seem more comfortable with ad hominen responses than with taking a few minutes to clarify their opinions.

This kind of art is mechanical of design, so let’s not have a contest to see who was first to interlock wide circle bands. Here is a link to one of MANY paintings by Frank Stella. This one from 1970 and there are more . . . many more . . . please know that the arts grow by growing, not by getting all fidgety of brainy part. You get to be original by doing something that can’t be origined again. Copied, yes, but not birthed. http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5G7ylkVrnkYV4unehozS45JjdmuIWW54lGDc5zTEYqFOZGCu5

Funny how a few small changes can turn a fairly cool bit of artwork into something very dull and bland. It seems as though the only bit of artwork that designers/fashion people care about any more is the logo of the company that made the article of clothing/sunglasses/purse/whatever. It’s boring.

I still own a Crass shirt from way back in the day. For the most part, it’s solely a “workout at the gym” shirt these days, given the shape it’s in, but my wife doesn’t like me wearing it because she thinks it looks too much like a swastika when just glanced at quickly.

This is the second time the crass logo has crept into high fashion.
The last appropriator was Jean-Paul Gaultier.
Amusingly, British Football Icon David Beckam was often photographed in his Crass/JPG t-shirt!
I wonder if he knew much about it’s symbolism?

Terrible, awful grammar in the headline – It could be ‘of” or ‘from’ but definitely not ‘for’. The UK fashion brand did not rip off the band’s logo FOR the band did they? Perhaps they did. Maybe the UK fashion brand entered into a cynical marketing ploy with the band to gain some currency for the ageing punkers???

(Disclaimer: The following in all in good sport and purely IMHO, Jambon. TWO PEDANTS WILL ENTER THE CAGE OF DEATH. ONLY ONE WILL LEAVE! :) That said…)

It’s “the logo FOR the band Crass.” Taken in isolation like that, the usage is a little eccentric, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, myself. The preposition is perfectly appropriate; the way I see it, you had to made the unnecessary assumption that “for iconic punk band Crass” modifies “ripped off,” and not the IMHO far more sensible interpretation where it modifies “logo.” Without that deliberate misconstruction, I don’t feel there’s nearly as much to criticize.

I do think you’re right that their usage introduces ambiguity that is a bit inelegant; I also think “terrible, awful grammar” is a drastic exaggeration for all but the Lynne Truss crowd, who are nice people in general but generally best avoided at cocktail parties. ;)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Both Crass and The Ex jam packed their records with art and goodies, but it was second to the music. Just because you never listened to the “vinyl albums” you own doesn’t mean they are a band known more for their graphic design aesthetic than their music.

Also, Crass had a show of artwork in the fall at the wonderful Boo-Hooray Gallery. The website for the show had a ton of artwork and is still up (I don’t work for them, just think Boo-Hooray and Crass are both pretty great).

I think the issue is not about some absolutist IP ideology, but comes down to ethics and intent. Crass were a non-profit collective of anarchists. It’s just totally wrong to turn their symbol into some kind of fashion icon. It’s evil.